Chapter 255, National Treasury Employees Union (Union) filed
a request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) to
consider a negotiation impasse under section 7119 of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute) between it and the Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Northeast Region, Boston, Massachusetts
(Employer).

The Panel determined that the case should be resolved through
an informal conference via telephone between the parties and Chief Legal Advisor
Donna M. Di Tullio. If there were no settlement, she was to notify the Panel of
the status of the dispute, including the parties' final offers and her
recommendations for resolving the matter. Following consideration of this
information, the Panel would take whatever action it deemed appropriate to
resolve the impasse.

Ms. Di Tullio conducted a telephone conference with the
parties on August 28, 1990, during which the parties agreed that negotiations
over their first term agreement would be held in Boston, Massachusetts, where
the Employer's headquarters office is located. They were unable to resolve two
other groundrules issues. Ms. Di Tullio reported to the Panel based upon the
record developed by the parties, and the Panel has now considered the entire
record, including her recommendations for settlement.

BACKGROUND

The Employer's mission is to administer and monitor state and
local food and nutrition programs in the New England states and New York. The
Union represents approximately 110 bargaining-unit employees, of whom 60 percent
are stationed in the Employer's headquarters office and the rest in 9 field
offices throughout the region. Typically, employees hold positions such as food
program specialist, computer program analyst, financial management specialist,
data entry transcriber, and clerk. The Union became the exclusive bargaining
representative in September 1989. The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)
also represents four other bargaining units within the Food and Nutrition
Service.

During term negotiations, the Union will have on its
bargaining team no more than three employees on official time.

ISSUES AT IMPASSE

The parties disagree over the schedule for negotiations, and
to what extent, if any, the Employer should pay the travel and per diem expenses
of a member of the Union's bargaining team who would be on official time during
negotiations.

1. Negotiation Schedule

a. The Employer's Position

The Employer proposes that the parties have 5 weeks of
negotiations without third-party assistance, with the option of an additional
week upon mutual agreement. According to the Employer, 5 weeks should be long
enough for the parties to complete bargaining; however, a longer negotiation
schedule may be needed since they do not have an established
collective-bargaining relationship. Thus, the option for a 6th week of
bargaining would ensure that if negotiations must be continued beyond 5 weeks, a
procedure is in place for extending negotiations.

b. The Union's Position

The Union proposes that the parties have 3 weeks of
unassisted negotiations, with no option for extending bargaining. The
proposal provides sufficient time for negotiations and, should issues remain
unresolved, the parties already have agreed to bargain, if necessary, with
third-party assistance. A shorter period for negotiations as proposed by the
Union is justified since NTEU has negotiated contracts with several other
regions within the Food and Nutrition Service and it intends to use, to some
extent, those agreements as models for negotiations with the Employer with the
hope of reducing the amount of time for negotiations. Furthermore, absent some
assistance from the Employer with travel and per diem expenses incurred by
members of the Union's bargaining team who are on official time, any period
longer than 3 weeks would create a severe financial hardship for the Union.

2. Travel and Per Diem

a. The Employer's Position

The Employer takes the position that it should not have to
assume responsibility for the payment of travel allowances and per diem expenses
incurred by any member of the Union's negotiating team during any stage of
negotiations. Its reasoning is, simply, that due to the current uncertainties
with respect to its budget for fiscal year 1991, it is unable to absorb any
portion of the Union's expenses for its team members on official time. Once its
budget is approved, however, it would then be in a position to negotiate over
the matter.

b. The Union's Position

The Union proposes that the Employer pay 100 percent of the
travel and per diem expenses for 1 field office employee on its bargaining team
for the duration of unassisted negotiations, and 75 percent of those expenses
incurred during the agreed-upon 2 weeks of assisted negotiations, if necessary,
with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) and the Panel. Due to
the potential for a lengthy bargaining period should the Panel adopt the
Employer's proposal concerning the negotiation schedule, and the costs
associated with collective bargaining, reimbursement of some of the Union's
expenses would allow the Union to defray some of its costs. Thus, the Union
would be able to include on its bargaining team an employee from one of the
field offices. Field office representation is important due to the unique issues
which arise there and the large number of employees who are stationed in the
field.

Moreover, the proposal is reasonable given that the Union
will be paying the expenses for the other two employees as well as its two staff
members who will be on the bargaining team.

CONCLUSIONS

Having considered the evidence and arguments in this case, we
conclude that the parties should adopt compromise wording to resolve both
issues. With respect to the negotiation schedule, 3 weeks of unassisted
negotiations and, upon mutual agreement of the parties, 1 additional week of bargaining should serve the
interests of both the Union and the Emplo